Quick Start

[CraigC]

So I'm curious as to people's thoughts on this NERF form of tennis. They say many programs in Europe are using this form of the game, and that it will be the savior of American player development. With a $10 million dollar budget to promote mini-tennis, and the entire USTA pushing this as the future of the sport, I think it's time someone asked the masses their opinion of it all. So? What do you all think of this $10 million dollar nerf tennis game?

[CraigC]

Wow

Two days in and no reply. That's pretty much what I expected regarding this topic. Nobody wants to comment on it.

[uspta1366106393]

Quick Start

I have been using foam and transition balls in my programs for about 1 year. I am also running 6Tennis Leagues for the 2nd year. We have about 70 juniors in the league this year.

The progressive tennis helps keep the kids motivated and having fun. I am not sure if it will lead to better players ( I think it will ) but it helps them learn to play. They can also learn strategy sooner.


Ps. I have used your atricles in my adult and advanced junior lessons. Thanks for your help!

[uspta146749877]

Please be specific

Two days in and no reply. That's pretty much what I expected regarding this topic. Nobody wants to comment on it.

It is NOT obvious what do u want to talk about.
Possible aspects/dimensions are:
1.financial-i.e whether clubs will make more money out of programs
like this ?

2.skill development-i.e do u teach forehand once for an age of
6 and once more a "different forehand" for an age of 12,etc

3.fun-is tennis basically about fun?

4.being politically incorrect ( i.e against USTA)

Plrease let me know which one u would like to talk about
julian usptapro 27873

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

[uspta146749877]

Progressive?

I have been using foam and transition balls in my programs for about 1 year. I am also running 6Tennis Leagues for the 2nd year. We have about 70 juniors in the league this year.

The progressive tennis helps keep the kids motivated and having fun. I am not sure if it will lead to better players ( I think it will ) but it helps them learn to play. They can also learn strategy sooner.


Ps. I have used your atricles in my adult and advanced junior lessons. Thanks for your help!

Please define the word progressive,if I may ask this silly question.
Do u mean:
1.as one of progression
2.one generating a progress like the name
of one of Canadian political parties ?

[CraigC]

Clearing things up

The USTA claims this will be the "savior" of player development in America, drawing more kids into the game, creating better strategic and technical development, and motivating more kids to play.
Do you think this will develop future professionals at a better rate than tennis on a full size court with tennis balls?
Is this format (not a program according to their explanation) worth the $10 million dollar marketing campaign the USTA is attaching to it?
Having interviewed many coaches on this issue, I've found that they all have more players participating in the clinics. However, when they reach the age where they leave the mini-court format at age 10 (dictated by the USTA) the kids are well behind technically when compared to their peers playing regular tennis. They also say their movement is lacking and their conditioning is not as good, although these issues may not be relevant to success at this age.
And yes, finally, I'd like to hear your views from both a politically correct, and politically incorrect stance?

[uspta146749877]

From Manchester,MA

The USTA claims this will be the "savior" of player development in America, drawing more kids into the game, creating better strategic and technical development, and motivating more kids to play.
Do you think this will develop future professionals at a better rate than tennis on a full size court with tennis balls?
Is this format (not a program according to their explanation) worth the $10 million dollar marketing campaign the USTA is attaching to it?
Having interviewed many coaches on this issue, I've found that they all have more players participating in the clinics. However, when they reach the age where they leave the mini-court format at age 10 (dictated by the USTA) the kids are well behind technically when compared to their peers playing regular tennis. They also say their movement is lacking and their conditioning is not as good, although these issues may not be relevant to success at this age.
And yes, finally, I'd like to hear your views from both a politically correct, and politically incorrect stance?

1.A head pro in Manchester.MA was very happy with the format
2.There is NO way to stop this trend
3.even people in USTA are prone to mistakes
4.expect me to be banned from the forum
It lloks like we closed the topic somehow
julian usptapro 27873

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

[uspta146749877]

Did we close the topic?

Two days in and no reply. That's pretty much what I expected regarding this topic. Nobody wants to comment on it.

Did we close the topic?

[BrianGordon]

Craig - interesting topic:

I think it comes down to goal driven philosophy. More players, performing at a higher level, can be attained in two fundamental ways:

1. Attract a larger volume of participants where the odds increase that a larger number of players will have the natural ability (genetics) to achieve high levels of play – a quantity game.

2. Improve the training methodology of current volumes of players through innovative programs, technology, coaching effectiveness, etc. - a quality game.

As the USTA survives in large part based on numbers it is not surprising, nor is it a departure from their focus in many areas, that they choose #1. My problem is that, at least in part based on Craig’s description, they are covering #1 in the veil of #2 – which I don’t believe to necessarily be the case.

Of course, #1 + #2 = the best solution – what are your thoughts Craig?

[CraigC]

My thoughts...preparing for the same banning as my predecessor

Quick Start is a terrific concept for introducing kids to racket sports. BUT....

Although I have had many conversations with the powers-that-be who are promoting this initiative, in the hopes of learning the philosophy behind it, I cannot see its relevance in player development.
They base their belief in this program on a very logical foundation. The smaller courts and lower bounce of the balls in Quick Start, is analogous to tennis on a larger court as played by adults. I get it. It makes sense.
However, the plan to keep players playing nerf and low compression tennis until they are 10 years old is simply crazy. It is antithetical to every premise the USTA has put out about player development over the past 15 years.
They claim that it takes 10 years and 10,000 hours to master the game. If a player starts playing with a regular tennis ball at age 11, then where does the next generation of players start their careers--after age 20? I believe the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, and South Americans' skill sets be way ahead of American's skill sets by that time.
I work with a 10 year old girl who is probably 5 years away from playing professional tennis. She drills the ball from the baseline, focuses on depth and angles, loves to come forward to finish points, and has developed a solid serving motion to date. Under the small court format, she wouldn't event have hit a regular tennis ball yet.
They claim the tactical understanding of the sport will improve because players will come to the net more in the smaller court format. This may be true, and players may learn better tactical tennis at an earlier age. But, is improving tactical prowess to the detriment of technique and movement going to have a positive effect on the game.
They claim that players will improve technique because the ball bounces lower and it will be in their strike zone all the time. Guess what...the strike zone in tennis is EVERYWHERE because players at the high levels of the game do everything in their power to keep the ball OUT of the strike zone. Let the kids learn to deal with all types of shots and bounces because that is what they will face when they go out to compete. Additionally, having watched many many kids go through "nerf tennis" over the past year, I have seen their faces when they first strike a tennis ball and feel the impact of the ball on the racket. Their entire stroke breaks down and the learning process starts all over again.
Perhaps my biggest problem with the program is the following:
I worked with 4 kids on "nerf tennis" for 4 weeks, then progressed them to the low compression ball for 4 weeks, and finally moved them to TENNIS for 4 weeks. At the same time, I worked with 4 kids for 12 weeks with a regular tennis ball. There was simply no comparison in skill level. The regular tennis ball kids were far more developed after 12 weeks. (YES, the athleticism of the kids was comparable in both groups.)
I am not here to condemn the program, as I hope it increases the pool of athletes we can recruit from. I sincerely hope it brings about new interest in our sport and that kids want more once they leave the Quick Start Format. I am simply asking the question on this forum, because I believe a $10 million dollar promotional budget for a program that is untested and lacking research as it compares to regular tennis, is quite a risk of USTA dollars. Moreover, I think placing the entire player development hopes on an untested format is simply stupid.
Alas, I have said too much and shown my true colors. I'll now await my public flogging. When you come with your comments and tiny rackets to beat me, you can find me on my FULL SIZE TENNIS COURT, with talented 7-9 year olds, an international Little Moe 9 year old champion, and 6 young professional tour players, trying to do my part in developing the future champions of American tennis.

[uspta146749877]

I am on your side

Quick Start is a terrific concept for introducing kids to racket sports. BUT....

Although I have had many conversations with the powers-that-be who are promoting this initiative, in the hopes of learning the philosophy behind it, I cannot see its relevance in player development.
They base their belief in this program on a very logical foundation. The smaller courts and lower bounce of the balls in Quick Start, is analogous to tennis on a larger court as played by adults. I get it. It makes sense.
However, the plan to keep players playing nerf and low compression tennis until they are 10 years old is simply crazy. It is antithetical to every premise the USTA has put out about player development over the past 15 years.
They claim that it takes 10 years and 10,000 hours to master the game. If a player starts playing with a regular tennis ball at age 11, then where does the next generation of players start their careers--after age 20? I believe the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, and South Americans' skill sets be way ahead of American's skill sets by that time.
I work with a 10 year old girl who is probably 5 years away from playing professional tennis. She drills the ball from the baseline, focuses on depth and angles, loves to come forward to finish points, and has developed a solid serving motion to date. Under the small court format, she wouldn't event have hit a regular tennis ball yet.
They claim the tactical understanding of the sport will improve because players will come to the net more in the smaller court format. This may be true, and players may learn better tactical tennis at an earlier age. But, is improving tactical prowess to the detriment of technique and movement going to have a positive effect on the game.
They claim that players will improve technique because the ball bounces lower and it will be in their strike zone all the time. Guess what...the strike zone in tennis is EVERYWHERE because players at the high levels of the game do everything in their power to keep the ball OUT of the strike zone. Let the kids learn to deal with all types of shots and bounces because that is what they will face when they go out to compete. Additionally, having watched many many kids go through "nerf tennis" over the past year, I have seen their faces when they first strike a tennis ball and feel the impact of the ball on the racket. Their entire stroke breaks down and the learning process starts all over again.
Perhaps my biggest problem with the program is the following:
I worked with 4 kids on "nerf tennis" for 4 weeks, then progressed them to the low compression ball for 4 weeks, and finally moved them to TENNIS for 4 weeks. At the same time, I worked with 4 kids for 12 weeks with a regular tennis ball. There was simply no comparison in skill level. The regular tennis ball kids were far more developed after 12 weeks. (YES, the athleticism of the kids was comparable in both groups.)
I am not here to condemn the program, as I hope it increases the pool of athletes we can recruit from. I sincerely hope it brings about new interest in our sport and that kids want more once they leave the Quick Start Format. I am simply asking the question on this forum, because I believe a $10 million dollar promotional budget for a program that is untested and lacking research as it compares to regular tennis, is quite a risk of USTA dollars. Moreover, I think placing the entire player development hopes on an untested format is simply stupid.
Alas, I have said too much and shown my true colors. I'll now await my public flogging. When you come with your comments and tiny rackets to beat me, you can find me on my FULL SIZE TENNIS COURT, with talented 7-9 year olds, an international Little Moe 9 year old champion, and 6 young professional tour players, trying to do my part in developing the future champions of American tennis.

CraigC,
I am completely on your side.
The only issue is that my voice does NOT matter.
It would be interesting to check whether Spain promotes
an equivalent of QuckStart,
regards,
julian uspta pro 27873
juliantennis@comcast.net

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

http://www.ndatyngsboro.org/page.cfm?p=271&teamID=10&display=Coaches

[uspta1366106393]

Quick Start

I am sorry that it has taken me awhile to get back to this forum. Somebody asked what progressive tennis is, it is just moving from smaller racquets and courts to larger racquets and courts.

I am not holding myself out to be an expert on junior developement, but I do believe that progressive tennis will help in many areas. First as stated by others it should help get more juniors playing tennis at the young ages. Second it should help juniors that mature at later ages, they can play and compete with bigger and stronger kids. Third, it should allow more juniors to develope one handed backhands and come to net more. Hopefully it will help young juniors move away form huge forehand grips and just moonballing rallies.

I have read that most of the Eourpean countries use progressive tennis and that Henin and Fed both started this way. Can't be sure that is true.

I don't think this is the end all program and as usual the USTA will change focus in a couple of years. As for as the $10 million the history of the USTA (or any large corporation, military, and/or the federal govt.) is that they overspend and have too much red tape. Cardio Tennis is a good example of a good program that is over hyped.

Look on utube and type in progressive tennis and the top rated video is very interesting.

Anyway if we just end up with more players that would not be so bad.

[CraigC]

I rest my case

Yes, that video is quite impressive as a promo for a tennis academy. So here is the real question. If the system is soooo good, and Henin and Fed grew up on this stuff (which by the way is an unsubstantiated rumor to date) shouldn't we say that it hasn't worked very well, considering Belgium and Switzerland haven't exactly produced much since? Seriously, they are both 25+ which means this program is at least 20 years old. If it is worth the $10 million dollar investment, I'd posit that we should see some better returns for our money than those two countries. I'd suspect that Federer could have grown up on roller skates and ping pong balls and been a top tennis player. As for Henin, we are talking about one of the greatest female athletes in history and I doubt she'd ascribe her success to "nerf tennis" moreso than her own work ethic and her guru Carlos Rodriguez. Lastly, if this thing is worth $10 million, why did we wait 20 years to try it? I'm doing my best not to laugh ror cry, but this is really depressing. Thank you all for responding though, as my intention was at least to get some dialogue going over this issue.

[uspta146749877]

I am very sorry

Yes, that video is quite impressive as a promo for a tennis academy. So here is the real question. If the system is soooo good, and Henin and Fed grew up on this stuff (which by the way is an unsubstantiated rumor to date) shouldn't we say that it hasn't worked very well, considering Belgium and Switzerland haven't exactly produced much since? Seriously, they are both 25+ which means this program is at least 20 years old. If it is worth the $10 million dollar investment, I'd posit that we should see some better returns for our money than those two countries. I'd suspect that Federer could have grown up on roller skates and ping pong balls and been a top tennis player. As for Henin, we are talking about one of the greatest female athletes in history and I doubt she'd ascribe her success to "nerf tennis" moreso than her own work ethic and her guru Carlos Rodriguez. Lastly, if this thing is worth $10 million, why did we wait 20 years to try it? I'm doing my best not to laugh ror cry, but this is really depressing. Thank you all for responding though, as my intention was at least to get some dialogue going over this issue.

I am very sorry that u did NOT notice that I am on your side

[airforce1]

Craig,
I'm not really up on the mini tennis thing, so I shouldn't comment.
But I will anyway, hahaha.

1st, I don't think a comparison of your 2 groups can be made at the end of those weeks. It would take months or years to see if the understanding of the court from the mini tennis had paid serious dividends. The nerf tennis is not going to make the kids automaticly hit the regular ball better right away, but it might help in developing form that could pay off in the long run.

#2 relates to #1
we try to make too much in tennis out of how kids do so young. Many of the greats in other sports don't ever show it till their 20s, but in tennis, we have already written them off by then. To be a late bloomer in tennis, you have to beat the system and your opponents!

By my estimations, the Jordans and Barkleys of tennis never get the chance in our sport. The entry is too blocked by the time these guys showed any promise!